Talk:Martin Luther King Jr./Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Request for comment: Is it permissible to use "African American in lead" sentence?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it permissible to use "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence? Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: See previous discussion in the section immediately above.

• Yes - As I stated above, MOS:ETHNICITY allows use of ethnicity in the lead (which includes the lead sentence) for bios of people whose ethnicity is relevant to their notability. King certainly fits that standard, and it's done in other articles. If someone wants it in the lead but not in the lead sentence, we need a policy or guideline to support that rather than a personal opinion. Including or excluding it in the lead sentence is a personal opinion, since either way it is acceptable in the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  If someone wants it in the lead but not in the lead sentence, we need a policy or guideline to support that rather than a personal opinion. I really do not understand the argument you are suggesting here. MOS:ETHNICITY states Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. It states the lead. Not lead sentence, not lead paragraph, it allow editors determine where exactly in the lead it can be applied done on an article-by-article basis. It does not say it has be in 'lead sentence or nothing'. It does not say, if you support it anywhere else in the lead paragraph non-lead sentence then you are just using your personal opinion not based on policy.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think you may have missed my point, probably because I haven't stated it clearly. I agree that the issue of lead sentence can be determined on a case by case basis, which is exactly why I started this RfC. Just as it is personal opinion to include it from the lead sentence, it is personal opinion to exclude it from the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. Because we usually put citizenship ("American") not ethnicity nor race, otherwise it suggests that African Americans or Blacks are not American. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

African American clearly identifies someone as American. It's one of the most commonly used descriptors in the English language. You could substitute "black", but that's not necessary. Either way, your logic is flawed. Someone can be described with two adjectives; one does not negate the other simply because two are used. Please give us the policy or guidelines that prevents it from being in the lead sentence. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you. This article has had American (no hyphen anything) in the lead a long time perfectly in keeping with MOS:ETHNCITY. African American or black I support being in the lead, -- not in the first sentence, where MOS says generally put citizenship. American is citizenship, African American is ethnicity not citizenship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, citizenship is included in the lead sentence, but that doesn't prevent ethnicity from being in the lead sentence when it's appropriate. Again, one adjective does not negate the other. That's a matter or opinion since MOS:ETHNICITY is silent on the exact location in the lead. Sundayclose (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Coincidently, this bad idea of replacing American with African American was just in the news, the suggested racism was not a good look.[1] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Off topic (that's not a criticism, just an observation), and I don't want to start a new debate on that issue, but one U.S. senator's misuse of terminology doesn't have a lot of bearing on exactly which term should be used on Wikipedia. If enough people here want it to be "black", I can accept that. But African American is quite acceptable, including for most African Americans. In any event, it's not very relevant to this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The effect of our words and actions is relevant: your edit seeks to replace the long-standing citizenship, with race or ethnicity in the place of the long-standing well supported in the MOS, citizenship. There was a time in America when blacks were written out of citizenship -- no more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the term. "African American" incorporates nationality and ethnicity. African Americans are Americans with a specific ethnicity. It would be awkward to say "American African Americans", and it's not necessary. I believe you made your comments in good faith, but please be careful not to divert this issue to one of racism and historical mistreatment of African Americans. I respect your comments about disenfranchisement of African Americans, but it is really not relevant to this discussion. If this RfC results in placing "African American" in the lead sentence, I would welcome a separate discussion on the specific term for the ethnicity, perhaps with input from WP:WikiProject African diaspora and WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups. But not here. As I have said several times, we could use the word "black American", but African American is more common. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Both the MOS and the article African American agree African American is ethnicity, not citizenship. Whereas American is citizenship. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you link or otherwise identify where in MOS it is stated that African American is not citizenship, and that the term "African American" does not identify someone as American? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Black American" and "African American" both denote citizenship. That's the American part of it. Our article African American (to which Black American redirects) begins African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans and formerly, Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group consisting of Americans .... There is no merit to the argument that "Black American" or "African American" replaces citizenship with race or otherwise omits or eliminates citizenship. Levivich 00:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It says it is an ethnic group, that means it is an ethnicity. In that very sentence American without hyphen anything is the citizenship (or nationality). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Sorry, I don't understand your comment "In that very sentence American without hyphen anything is the citizenship". Could you explain. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

an ethnic group consisting of Americans The whole point of that article you linked to is that all African Americans are Americans (the faux pas McConnell committed was suggesting otherwise). If all A's are B's, and X is an A, then X is a B. Basic logic, right? Levivich 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of that article is that African Americans are an ethnic group. American is the citizenship or nationality (that is what the link tells), so when we put American in the place we usually put citizenship, that is the clear direct way to express citizenship, not ethnicity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that if the reader reads "John Doe is African American", the reader will deduce that John Doe is an American. Levivich 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So when expressing citizenship, say he is an American, there is no need to deduce anything and American is the standard wording for expressing citizenship, in the place where we usually first give the context of citizenship, not ethnicity. There is plenty of room to refer to ethnicity later in the lead. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That article in the news is not about this. Here are some better articles, IMO: [2] [3]. Levivich 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the information, but I'll ask anyone who wants to discuss which terminology should be used to raise the discussion elsewhere. It's an important issue, but this RfC needs to focus on whether the term (whichever is appropriate) should appear in the lead sentence. Right now the lead identifies MLK Sr. as "black". I'm fine with that if enough people support its use. Sundayclose (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I hear you but FWIW, the RFC question, Is it permissible to use "African American" in the lead sentence? doesn't convey whether the term (whichever is appropriate) should appear in the lead sentence; you might want to rephrase it :-) Levivich 00:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I added "Black American". Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's certainly permissible, per MOS:ETHNICITY if it is relevant to the subject's notability (which it is for this subject). That doesn't mean, though, that I think it must be in the lead sentence, or even should be. I can imagine a lot of lead paragraphs with different positioning. For me, the bottom line, is that the reader should be told, early (i.e., somewhere in the lead paragraph, and lead sentence would be fine but not crucial) that King was a member of the group whose rights he fought for. That's because it's a key part of the civil rights movement that it was led by people of color and not white people (some may argue that was an essential part of its [relative] success, as compared with civil rights efforts led by white people). It's also beyond dispute that, for example, MLK would not have been arrested as much if he was white. It's important to include it in the first paragraph, certainly permissible in the first sentence, and I have no strong opinion about "black" or "African American" for this particular article subject. Levivich 00:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per MOS:ETHNICITY. I think what you were really asking is, "should it be". My personal opinion, well, it should certainly be in the lead. It doesn't state anything about his race, which is fundamental to the story of the man. Everything that the man was known for, was fueled in some part by race. I'm leaning towards the lead sentence at this point, as I can't find many other places in the lead where it would fit in now. There is already precedent for this at the b-class article, Rosa Parks. If we do end up adding info about his race, I would prefer the adjectives African American as it will make the idea more concise, and get across two fundamental ideas. Sea Cow (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Also precedent at Malcolm X, Frederick Douglass, Irene Morgan, Alberta Odell Jones, Huey P. Newton, Elizabeth Eckford, Aurelia Browder, Naomi Anderson, Theresa El-Amin, Amzie Moore, Nannie Helen Burroughs, Ernest Green, and Elizabeth Piper Ensley. I'm sure there are others. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC). I'm sure there are others. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

See Barack Obama; and for this article (Martin Luther King, Jr), it is already in the first paragraph of the lead that he was black. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not a great way to describe his race, it describer's his father, it would be a lot better if we just got the point across and said he was African American, instead of doing it some backwards way and talking about his fathers race. Sea Cow (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not describing his father's race/ethnicity (although it does that too by implication) King Jr. is the subject of that sentence, that sentence is describing King Jr. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my bad about screwing up the subject. Anyways, it's a really not great sentence construction. The entire sentence is confusing and needs to be rewritten. I still think this should be a principal topic and go in the lead sentence though. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is an incorrectly framed/loaded RfC. Yes, of course it is permissible, but is it better in the 1st phrase or in 2nd phrase (as in current version). This is the essence of the disagreement. As the flow goes, current version seems to be OK. One must suggest a specific change (a specific phrase, for example) for an RfC to be productive. And start from discussing the issue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The exact wording of the first sentence doesn't have to be stated explicitly. The issue whether enough people support including the term "African American" or "Black American" in the lead sentence. But if someone insists, I can formulate a sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That would certainly help, since of course it's "permissible" to use "African/Black American" in the lead sentence. The main question here though is if it should be included in the lead sentence and if so, where exactly in the lead sentence. I would oppose "...was an African/Black American Baptist minister"[4] as the current version[5] is better IMHO, but I have yet to see other proposed phrasings for the lead sentence. And of course the lead paragraph could be re-written altogether if needed. Some1 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I suggest a tweak to the first sentence: "Martin Luther King Jr. (born Michael King Jr.; January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an African American Baptist minister and activist who became the most visible spokesman and leader in the American civil rights movement from 1955 until his assassination in 1968." But I'm open to suggestion as long as "African American" (with or without a hyphen) or "black American" is in the lead sentence. Sundayclose (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So why exactly this should be in the first, rather than in 2nd phrase? My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Because his ethnicity in relation to his activism is notable enough to put it in the first sentence, as is done in numerous other articles for African American activists. This is a matter of opinion, of course, just as not putting it in the lead sentence is a matter of opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• To be clear for people coming in, there is no current dispute (and never has been) about describing King Jr as African American or black in the first paragraph. The first paragraph of this article already does, but MOS ETHNICITY says that generally the first context is citizenship, here American. Like we do in the Barack Obama article, this article (almost immediately thereafter) describes him as African-American/black in the context of his life and work. (see also Wikipedia:ETHNICRACECAT for Wikipedia consensus that African American is ethnicity). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Since we're restating the issue, it is a matter of opinion about whether "African American" or "Black American" would be in the lead sentence (as it is for a number of articles about major African American civil rights activists; I provide a few above), which is not forbidden by MOS:ETHNICITY. Sundayclose (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There would be no need to restate the issue, if you had not jumped to a malformed and misleading RfC. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it's malformed or misleading. As for "jumping", if you have a personal issue with me, this is not the venue to discuss it. Take it to my talk page. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You have already been told by others above you created a malformed and misleading RfC, and that your jumping into an RfC without discussion is a hinderance to resolution, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with you and one other editor. If there is a consensus here that the RfC is malformed, I will start another one. But at this point that is not the case. If you want to challenge what I have done, please take this to my talk page or WP:ANI so that there will not be a "hindrance" to this discussion, to use your term. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Not one other editor, you have been told by multiple editors, the question this RfC asks makes little sense and is not actionable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. If a closer states that the RfC is malformed, I will do another one. And again, please take this issue to an administrators' board, not here. You are interfering with the discussion. I will be happy to address it elsewhere, but not here. It's pointless for you and me to repeatedly express our disagreement with each other here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This RfC is the discussion, the discussion of malformation and misleading nature of the RfC belongs here, not elsewhere. The hindrance arises from the malformation and misleading nature of the RfC.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Permissible, though not preferable, as I believe it's good to mention in the lead paragraph, but it's a bit hammer-headed to have it in the primary phrasing. Also agree with Alanscottwalker that the RFC is founded on an outcome that will still be a clumsy outcome. Who cares if it's "permissible"? - Here Under The Oaks (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Unnecessary, just for some "guidance" I checked Brittanica.com and they don't use the term anywhere in their lead. Also, I think the second sentence in our MLK article is poorly worded, its use of African-American a "stick in the eye." Must Wikipedia be so "literal" or heavy-handed? By that I mean, if it's really essential, why not work it in subtly/indirectly? For example (not for publication): "MLK led the civil rights movement in seeking equality for African Americans" or if we must, "for his fellow African-Americans." His photo, what most people know and all the rest gets the point across quite effectively. BTW, the idea came to me by looking up Brittanica's Dick Gregory article and then our Sidney Poitier article, which mentions "black" in passing, as opposed to first and foremost. Allreet (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Current RFC wording will not resolve any dispute Whether it is permissible does not appear to be at issue. The question is whether it ought to be in the first sentence. Martin Luther King is best known for being a. an American civil rights leader in the '50s and '60s or b. African-American. The answer is a: thus it's unnecessary and undesirable to put this in the first sentence. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but unnecessary, given the article subject photo and mention in the second sentence is sufficient. I agree the second sentence wording could be a bit better. Kierzek (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with those who say this RFC might be framed poorly. Of course anything is permissible if it's sourced to independent, reliable sources. The question is what's the best treatment for the subject matter. I personally see no issue with the current phrasing. He is indeed American, and African American. The fact that the latter was a major part of his activism means it should be mentioned early, but it wouldn't be absolutely necessary to shove it into the first sentence. I'm sure the RFC's current wording isn't really driving at the real issue, so I'm not sure how helpful this comment is, as an outsider to this dispute. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, and it is clearly relevant. Benjamin (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• No, to the extent that the real question is whether MLK's ethnicity should be in the opening sentence - categorically no. Should his ethnicity be in the lead, obviously yes, since it is relevant, although very few readers will be unaware of MLK's ancestry and the infobox photo is a bit of a giveaway! There is a - probably unintended - disservice in saying that he was a black (or African) American, rather than an American (who was black). It draws attention to his ethnicity first, which is ironical given the beliefs he fought (and was killed) for were the exact opposite of this. A sufficient reason to deviate from standard "nationality first" practice hasn't been given IMO. The proposal saves a few words, but ditches clarity AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. He campaigned for the rights of African Americans and was an African American community leader.--Seggallion (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. While it is "permissible" per se, I don't think it's necessary. The fact that he was black is of secondary importance to the fact that he was a minister and a civil rights activist. On any biographical article, it's not in good taste to mention the race of the subject in the lead sentence. Songwaters (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Permissable yes, but should we? No As I have explained in the preceding discussion. Though I would suggest having it somewhere in the lead paragraph tying into his civil rights activism.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per Sea Cow, Sundayclose, and Seggallion. Per precedent on other articles and centrality to this article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

2600:6C42:7C00:1FAC:C8AA:178E:B4D5:8CA (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Make it longer

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Led not Lead.

The first paragraph has the word "lead" in it. It needs to be "led" the actual word that fits there. 2601:346:C281:C680:7EB3:9D9:443C:7B05 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial Day

I've added some context to the Confederate Memorial Day article, along with sources, as it's been well-established by historians that the holiday was originally promoted during the Jim Crow era to reinforce white supremacy, and revived during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s (much like the concurrent rise of Confederate monuments). There's one editor who is insisting on removing this sourced material. I would prefer some editors get involved before it gets too ugly, because I have some experience with editors who want to removed what they consider "negative" items from an article, and I think a third or fourth party might be helpful here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect reference, MLK and FBI

The meaning of this sentence is incorrect. It implies MLK had a position in COINTELPRO.

When no evidence emerged to support this, the FBI used the incidental details caught on tape over the next five years in attempts to force King out of his leadership position in the COINTELPRO program.[3]

It should read:

When no evidence emerged to support this, the FBI used the incidental details caught on tape over the next five years in its COINTELPRO program, in attempts to force King out of his leadership position. 104.13.60.196 (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cambial — foliar❧ 12:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr. 500 words

Pls give better description of his life. 73.179.162.220 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Federal legislation was passed in 1983, not 1986 as seen on the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passage_of_Martin_Luther_King_Jr._Day 2601:1C0:5900:3850:EDAF:8BC2:1273:3601 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, signed in '83, first observed in '86. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr

Martin Luther King Jr is an American baptist minister and activist. A prominent leader for the civil rights for African Amercians freedom from 1955 until his assassination on April 4, 1968. Namgay Wangchuk norbu (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Assassination of King's mother

Should the "Aftermath" section of the article link to Alberta Williams King, Martin Luther King's mother, who was also assassinated? SFO Guy (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Martin Luther King jr. did not fight for "people of color". He fought for Black Americans that were descendants of slaves. The civil rights movement is because of slavery.

Change MLK fought for people of color to MLK fought for Black Americans descendants of slaves. Slavery is the reason for the civil rights movement. 2601:8C:780:ECB0:85DC:2707:6520:535 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You are making a distinction that King himself would have found invidious, and rejected. He was and is admired by people of color in the United States and all over the world (as well as Southern whites like myself), not just by ADOS. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Civil rights were an issue regarding Black Americans. They were the target of Jim Crow laws, voting disenfranchisement etc.

Sure, other groups admired him for his fight, but his fight was for Black Americans because they were the group targeted by a Jim Crow system, no? Gemdog (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Color photo?

Can the main image be switched to a similar one in color? Black and white pictures tend to make things feel like they happened much farther in the past then they actually did and there are many similar photos in color. 96.253.100.146 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Childhood

Hi There, can anyone help me understand why we're including this story, it seems a little WP:Undue to have so much detail of a random childhood incident to me, but I don't know the context:

"Once when King witnessed his brother A.D. emotionally upset his sister Christine, he took a telephone and knocked out A.D. with it. When he and his brother were playing at their home, A.D. slid from a banister and hit into their grandmother, Jennie, causing her to fall unresponsive. King, believing her dead, blamed himself and attempted suicide by jumping from a second-story window. Upon hearing that his grandmother was alive, King rose and left the ground where he had fallen."

JeffUK 07:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr.

A girl talking 2603:9001:3000:31E1:455C:8DFD:8731:44D2 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this seriously on the page?

Discussion of offensive, disparaging vandalism that has been resolved. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Martin Luther King Jr. (born Michael King Jr.; January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was a nikka (black man) who was deservedly shot and killed as he kept running his mouth." Deservedly shot? Killed as he kept running his mouth? Am I hallucinating or are these actually on the page? Moreover am I mad or are these racist? XiphosS (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC) It's racist vandalism. It had been there for five minutes when you reported it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC) When you see vandalism, you are supposed to revert to the last useful version of the page. Why were you expecting someone else to do it for you? Dimadick (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC) @Dimadick I had just got the Wikipedia mobile app at the time of writing that message and it was the first time I had seen such a thing. I was just too surprised when I first saw it to think of editing it. Sorry XiphosS (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

What if MLK wasn't killed?

Talk page is not for speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What if MLK was never assassinated? How would America continue living? 174.215.243.126 (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC) This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not general discussion of the topic. Sundayclose (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm ignorant to as to why there's not...

A (Dr.) With the parentheses as well in his name as the title of the page. PaUZz LYte (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@PaUZz LYte: Read WP:DOCTOR. Sundayclose (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand. The link you provided doesn't justify not uncluding the "Dr." in his name he earned by studying communications and debate, in fact it does the opposite. Of course he is well known for Dr. hence all the places named after him as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. PaUZz LYte (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@PaUZz LYte: No, it doesn't do the opposite. Read it again very carefully. It states that the "Dr." title "should be used in a Wikipedia article only when the subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title" (note the word I bolded: only). The default is to not include the title. "Dr. King" is not a pseudonym or stage name. He was addressed as "Dr. King" (as are most people with the title), but he is more widely referred to as MLK or his full name. Sundayclose (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand now thanks for clearing this up. I guess in the worry of trying to give him the recognition he deserves I only read "widely known" and stopped there. PaUZz LYte (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

167.91.0.226 (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to show a photo of Dr. Martin Luther King J.R as a teen, child. I have found inside these photos inside Dr. Martin Luther King J.R's childhood home. So I hope you can give me a request to edit the except thank you and bye.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. You should also take a look at [[WP:RS] and WP:Image Use Policy Cannolis (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I'm gonna go ahead and call this a textbook WP:SNOWCLOSE. There is no consensus for a move and that consensus will not emerge now if ever. (non-admin closure). estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Martin Luther King Jr. → Martin Luther King – Appearently this is (still) the common name. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose No way on this move. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly. Wikisteveb4 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Nope nope nope nope. Will always be Martin Luther King Jr. That is his entire name. Martin Luther King should remain a redirect. Wikisteveb4 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I've never opposed something more in my entire life. EytanMelech (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely not. jengod (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I would need to see significant indisputable evidence that "Martin Luther King" without "Jr." is the overwhelming common name. I still see the full "Martin Luther King Jr." on Britannica, the official Nobel Prize site, History.com, NACCP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Parade magazine, Associated Press, CNN, to name a few reliable sources. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose He is much more commonly known as Martin Luther King, Jr. When he started becoming well known, his father was also a minister and active in the civil rights movement. So the "Jr." part of his name was frequently used and continued to be used. This request should be snow closed if it doesn't get some support soon. Sundayclose (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, King's common name includes the Jr., and King himself used it consistently. His father, Martin Luther King Sr., was a long-time fixture in the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement and was known affectionately as "Daddy" King. Thus "Sr." and "Jr." also serve to identify the two notable individuals within Wikipedia's pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, If Martin Luther King Sr. didn't have an article, then I'd consider it, but because he does I don't think this is a good idea. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is the common name and to distinguish from MLK Sr.; however, I think the quality of some of these opposes are very poor. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as common name, for instance see the national "Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial" in Washington, DC.[6]. --Jahaza (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - the current title is the common name. This discussion will likely be closed early since there has been no support. Interstellarity (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

He cheated on his wife for the first time 158.106.202.46 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We have a whole section on Allegations of adultery, what are you looking to add? Cannolis (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

• ... that Martin Luther King Jr. (pictured) signed a world-wide call for a World Constitutional Convention which resulted in creation of a world constitution? Source: [7], [8]
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Recently reactivated WP: WikiProject Globalization, guys see if this fits the criteria. And thanks to the @User:Penny Richards for the source.

Improved to Good Article status by BeLucky (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Martin Luther King Jr.; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment' BeLucky, the article was listed as GA in 2013, so it does not appear to be new enough for DYK, where the nomination should be made within 7 days . TSventon (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment' @TSventon (talk) Found out a interseting fact and added it to the page. But unable to understand the category under which we can list. Can you suggest another category to list it under DYK? --BeLucky (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    • BeLucky DYK is for articles created, expanded at least fivefold or promoted to good article status within the past seven days, so this nomination is not eligible and expanding the article fivefold would be challenging. I can recommend DYK, but you do need to read the rules at WP:DYKRULES. TSventon (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
      • @TSventon (talk) Kindly explain what is the meaning of fivefold (5x). As unable to find any explanation on it. --BeLucky (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BeLucky, fivefold means expanding 1,000 characters of prose to at least 5,000. There is guidance about how to measure length in WP:DYKRULES and WP:DYKSG. If you have more questions the DYK talkpage is probably the best place. TSventon (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon Thanks for pointing out. Still learning. New to DYK thing. --BeLucky (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Martin Luther King Junior was an important staple to the civil rights movement Organicmaterr3499 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Not done, since the lead has "who was one of the most prominent leaders in the civil rights movement from 1955 until his assassination in 1968." in the first sentence. --Mvqr (talk) 09:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

Add Martin Luther King Jr. to the category of American Anti-Capitalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_anti-capitalists Jeusebi (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: [9] There are six citations in the article that support it. From the article: King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the necessities of many American people, particularly the African-American community. King expressed that "the evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism". ––FormalDude (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Support, check in politics section for any doubts. C0137Hatt (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No need to support or oppose, the category was put back  Done by FormalDude after I thanked him for pointing that out. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't agree on whether King supported the abolition of private property or workers control over the means of production. Some reliable sources describe him more as a social democrat than democratic socialist. Simply leaving "anti-capitalist" in the lead without context presents issues of WP: WEIGHT; modern social democracy is generally considered a form of capitalism, albeit heavily regulated. KlayCax (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Socialist quotes

There's recently been a dispute on whether these quotes by Martin Luther King Jr. belong in the article. I wouldn't be against it necessarily if it was an article surrounding his political beliefs exclusively. But I don't believe we can easily summarize or contextualize these statements (or historians views on them) without getting into problems. Since it appears that King is using the terms in a different way from what many people would interpret it to mean.

The American philosopher Tommie Shelby — who openly states he views King's policies as more radical than the average historiographical treatment by historians — states that King was almost certainly not a democratic socialist in the modern sense.

If you use a Marxist conception of capitalism and socialism, then I don’t think you can suggest that King was a socialist because he’s not calling for the abolition of private property in land, technology, resources, or finance. He’s not saying — not in his public writings — that wage labor is inherently exploitative. These are things that Marx would insist on. As much as he’s in favor of the labor movement and defends it, you don’t see King say anything like that. Now, maybe he thought it, somewhere, and he said it to someone, but it’s not in his public writings. He’s not defending it out front. Nor do you see him attacking the property question in that kind of militant way.

and:

I can understand people wanting to use King to advance a socialist cause, a cause I’m sympathetic to. But I don’t think it’s a good idea really to invoke him in this way without due care for what he actually says in his various writings and public speeches. People are really just drawing on, for the most part, a few remarks here and there that can be interpreted in a wide range of ways. So I suppose if you think Denmark is a socialist country, then I guess he’s a socialist. I do not myself think Denmark is a socialist country. But if you mean socialism in the sense that Marx and his allies meant, then I think it’d be pretty hard to make the case for that.

Without adding context and just including the quotes: Readers are going to get the impression that Martin Luther King Jr. held views similar to the Wikipedia article on democratic socialism. Which very likely isn't the case.

Most historians think King was a social democrat/left-wing American political figure. Currently, I think adding the quotes would likely lead to more confusion than understanding. KlayCax (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Why isn't his name Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on this page? His degrees were earned and when one has a doctorate we respect that. 24.121.72.18 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:REVEREND, we mention his degrees in the article, they just don't go in the first sentence like I think you're requesting Cannolis (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

1 3 1... 120.29.110.236 (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Martin Luther kind the second president

? 2601:583:8200:6440:B140:99C7:B2F3:55B3 (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No, while he never served directly in the government, he was a very important Civil Rights leader from 1955 until his death in 1968, he was also a Minister in a Church. 108.49.72.125 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2024

Unless objected, please ADD “Dr.” in front of Martin Luther King Jr name

Thank you Molldoll849 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't edit that, but please take a look at this, as to why "Dr." isn't added in front of his name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_12_January_2024 108.49.72.125 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Most titles and honorifics are not included in the article's title, nor in uses of the person's name, per MOS:PREFIX. Liu1126 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

RE: Early 1950 Maple Shade, Mary's Cafe incident

I ran across this article originally dated Jan 14 2024 describing an MLK incident at Mary's Cafe in South Jersey and a law suit in 1950. I'm not skilled in Wiki, but scanning around for a while, I didn't find any 1950 references. This was obviously while he was at Cozer. I paste a partial copy here. I do not need an answer. I just thought mention of something as early as 1950 may be considered to include. Obviously, Jersey thinks it is his first. FYI: I saw it yesterday (the 15th), but reading it today (16th) the date shows 15th.

NJ Spotlight News:

"It’s not just that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. held his first formal sit-in on June 11, 1950, in the South Jersey town of Maple Shade, but that protest also led to King’s first lawsuit against discrimination. . . . Nichols was arrested and charged, but when witnesses failed to testify, the case was dropped."

https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2024/01/1-16/ Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

47.148.122.51 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

He was black

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

the word NOT is missing

in the section early childhood it says: King's father responded sharply that King Jr. was a boy but he was a man

the word NOT is missing. 45.173.210.101 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)